Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P.

July 17 (30)-August 10 (23), 1903

21. Second Speech in the Discussion on the Party Rules

Ishould like first of all to make two remarks on minor points. First, on
      the subject of Axelrod’s kind proposal (I am not speaking ironically) to
      “strike a bargain.” I would willingly respond to this appeal, for I
      by no means consider our difference so vital as to be a matter of life or
      death to the Party. We shall certainly not perish because of an
      unfortunate clause in the Rules! But since it has come to the point of
      choosing betweentwoformulations, I simply cannot abandon my
      firm conviction that Martov’s formulation isworsethan the
      original draft andmay, in certain circumstances, cause no little
      harm to the Party. The second remark concerns Comrade

      Brucker.[1]It is only natural for Comrade Brucker, who wishes to apply the elective
      principle everywhere, to have accepted my formulation, the only one that
      defines at all exactly the concept of a Partymember.I therefore
      fail to understand Comrade Martov’s delight at Comrade Brucker’s agreement
      with me. Is it possible that in actual fact Comrade Martov makes a point
      ofguidinghimself by the opposite of what Brucker says, without
      examining his motives and arguments?

Tocome to the main subject, I must say that Comrade Trotsky has
      completely misunderstood Comrade Plekhanov’s fundamental idea, and his
      arguments have therefore evaded the gist of the matter. He has spoken of
      intellectuals and workers, of the class point of view and of the mass
      movement, but he has failed to notice a basic question: does my
      formulation narrow or expand the concept of a Partymember? If he had asked himself that question, he would easily have seen
      that my formulation narrows this concept, while Martov’s expands it, for
      (to use Martov’s own correct expression) what distinguishes his concept is
      its “elasticity.” And in the period of Party life that we are now
      passing through it is just this “elasticity” that undoubtedly
      opens the door to all elements of confusion, vacillation, and
      opportunism. To refute this simple and obvious conclusion it has to be
      proved that there are no such elements; but it has not even occurred to
      Comrade Trotsky to do that. Nor can that be proved, for everyone knows
      that such elements exist in plenty, and that they are to be found in the
      working class too. The need to safeguard the firmness of the Party’s line
      and the purity of its principles has now become particularly
      ·urgent, for, with the restoration of its unity, the Party will
      recruit into its ranks a great many unstable elements, whose number will
      increase with the growth of the Party. Comrade Trotsky completely
      misinterpreted the main idea of my book,What Is to Be Done?,
      when he spoke about the Party not being a conspiratorial organisation
      (many others too raised this objection). He forgot that in my book I
      propose a number of various types of organisations, from the most secret
      and most exclusive to comparatively broad and “loose”
      (lose)

      organisations.[See present edition,
	Vol. 5.—Ed.]

      He forgot that the Party must be only the vanguard, the leader of the vast
      masses of the working class, the whole (or nearly the whole) of which
      works “under the control and direction” of the Party
      organisations, but the whole of which does not and should not belong to a
      “party.” Now let us see what conclusions Comrade Trotsky arrives at
      in consequence of his fundamental mistake. He has told us here that if
      rank after rank of workers were arrested, and all the workers were to
      declare that they did not belong to the Party, our Party would be a
      strange one indeed! Is it not the other way round? Is it not Comrade
      Trotsky’s argument that is strange? He regards as something sad that which
      a revolutionary with any experience at all would only rejoice at. If
      hundreds and thousands of workers who were arrested for taking part in
      strikes and demonstrations did not proveto be members of Party organisations, it would only show that we have good
      organisations, and that we. are fulfilling our task of keeping a more or
      less limited circle of leaders secret and of drawing the broadest possible
      masses into the movement.

Theroot of the mistake made by those who stand for Martov’s formulation
      is that they not only ignore one of the main evils of our Party life, but
      even sanctify it. The evil is that, at a time when political discontent is
      almost universal, when conditions require our work to be carried on in
      complete secrecy, and when most of our activities have to be confined to
      limited, secret circles and even to private meetings, it is extremely
      difficult, almost impossible in fact, for us to distinguish those who only
      talk from those who do the work. There is hardly another country in the
      world where the jumbling of these two categories is as common and as
      productive of such boundless confusion and harm as in Russia. We are
      suffering sorely from this evil not only among the intelligentsia, but
      also among the working class, and Comrade Martov’s formulation sanctions
      it. This formulation necessarily tends to make Party members ofall
      and sundry; Comrade Martov himself was forced to admit this, although
      with a reservation:“Yes, if you like,” he said. But that
      is precisely what we do not like! And that is precisely why we are so
      adamant in our opposition to Martov’s formulation. It would be better if
      ten who do work should not call themselves Party members (real workers
      don’t hunt after titles!) than that one who only talks should have the
      right and opportunity to be a Party member. That is a principle which
      seems to me irrefutable, and which compels me to fight against Martov. The
      objection has been presented to me that we confer no rights on Party
      members, and that therefore there can be no abuses. This kind of objection
      is quite untenable: if we do not state what particular rights a Party
      member enjoys, please note that neither do we say that there is to be any
      restriction on the rights of Party members. That is point
      one. Secondly—and this is the main point—irrespective even of
      rights, we must not forget that every Party member is responsible for the
      Party, and thatthe Party is responsible for every one of its
      members.In view of the conditions inwhich we have to carry on our political activities, in view of the present
      rudimentary state of real political organisation, it would be simply
      dangerous and harmful to grant the right of membership to people who are
      not members of a Party organisation and to make the Party responsible for
      people who do not belong to an organisation (perhaps
      deliberately). Comrade Martov was horrified at the idea that one who is
      not a member of a Party organisation will have no right to declare in
      court that he is a Party member, however energetically he may have done
      his work. That does not frighten me. On the contrary, serious harm would
      be done if a person who calls himself a Party member, even though he does
      not belong to any Party organisation, were to behave unworthily in
      court. It would be impossible to deny that such a person was working under
      the control and direction of the organisation—impossible because of
      the very vagueness of the term. Actually—and there can be no doubt
      about this—the words “under the control and direction”
      will mean thatthere will be neither control nor direction.The
      Central Committee will never be able to exercise real control over all who
      do the work but do not belong to organisations. It is our task to placeactualcontrol in the hands of the Central Committee. It is our
      task to safeguard the firmness, consistency, and purity of our Party. We
      must strive to raise the title and the significance of a Party member
      higher, higher and still higher—and I therefore oppose Martov’s
      formulation.

[1]Brucker—pseudonym of the Menshevik Mrs. Makhnovets.